speedy40165
New member
If you are walking around and open carrying if a LEO stop you do you have to provide ID if your doing nothing wrong ?
Absolutely not. And the cop really has no business in stopping you. Just walk away.If you are walking around and open carrying if a LEO stop you do you have to provide ID if your doing nothing wrong ?
Not totally correct. The case is Hiibel.Snip
You may be required to provide identification which the Supreme Court says can be satisfied with a true accounting of your name and date of birth.
The Hiibel court made it abundantly clear that, until Hiibel, an open question existed as to whether a suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for the refusal to answer questions, ie a suspect exercising their Fifth Amendment right. Through Hiibel the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose their name in the course of a Terry stop. The Court did not extend that principle beyond the giving of the suspect's name.Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, the Court has recognized that an officer's reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer, see Brown, supra, at 53, n. 3. The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. Terry, supra, at 34.
My 2 cents:If you are walking around and open carrying if a LEO stop you do you have to provide ID if your doing nothing wrong ?
Not totally correct. The case is Hiibel.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel stated that....
Laws requiring suspects to identify themselves during investigative stops by law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment, and do not necessarily violate the Fifth Amendment
What part of the Hiibel quote don't you understand?Counselor, you are correct, in the case of Nevada, but not in general.
Alabama §15-5-30,- all require more than a mere true name and as far as I know none of them have had the constitutionality of their stater codes challenged.
Colorado §16-3-103,
Delaware §1902,
Illinois §107-14,
Indiana §34-28-5-3.5,
Kansas §22-2402,
Louisiana §215.1,
Montana § 46-5-401,
Nebraska §29-829,
New Hampshire §594:2,
New York §140.50,
North Dakota §29-29-21,
Ohio §2921.29,
Rhode Island §12-7-1,
Utah §77-7-15, and
Wisconsin §968.24
If I recall Hiibel correctly* NRS §171.123 requires someone stopped with RAS to 'identify' themselves (which is somewhat vague), which Larry Dudley Hiibel completely refused to do.
Hiibel was charged with obstruction by the Sheriff's Office of Humboldt County, Nevada
Hiibel was convicted, Justice Court for Union Township, Nevada
Hiibel conviction was affirmed, Sixth Judicial District Court, Humboldt County, Nevada
Hiibel appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, which rejected his appeal
Hiibel appealed to the US Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction.
Hiibel lost.
Summarized:
In the Hiible v Sixth case, the NV Code says "identify" without stating any particulars. Hiible... refused to even reveal his name.
The above bold does not say: The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name [address and date of birth] in the course of a Terry stop. The above quote in bold does not say Navada, it says "a State." A State means all 50 states.Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, the Court has recognized that an officer's reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer, see Brown, supra, at 53, n. 3. The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. Terry, supra, at 34.
I understand it quite well, I understand it well enough to understand that it doesn't say " a State May Only Require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop."What part of the Hiibel quote don't you understand?
The U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel stated that:
Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, the Court has recognized that an officer's reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer, see Brown, supra, at 53, n. 3. The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. Terry, supra, at 34.
The above bold does not say: The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name [address and date of birth] in the course of a Terry stop. The above quote in bold does not say Navada, it says "a State." A State means all 50 states.